Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement for details.

Product• Problem Statement: What is
the problem?• Technology / Market Insight: Why is the problem so hard to solve?• Market Size: How big is this problem?• Competition: What do customers do today?• Product: How do you do it?

Step 2: What’s the Minimum
Viable Product – Physical• First, test your understanding of the problem• Next test your understanding of the solution – Proves that it solves a core problem for customers – The minimum set of features needed to learn from earlyvangelists- Interviews, demos, prototypes, etc- Lots of eyeball contact

Step 2: What’s the Minimum
Viable Product – Web/Mobile• NOW “low fidelity” web/app for customer feedback – First, tests your understanding of the problem• LATER, “high fidelity” web/app tests your understanding of the solution – Proves that it solves a core problem for customers – The minimum set of features needed to learn from earlyvangelists- Avoid building products nobody wants- Maximize the learning per time spent

Step 2: What’s the Testing
the MVP– Web/Mobile - Tactics• Interview customers – make sure they have a matching core problem• Set up web site landing page to test for conversion – What offers are required to get customers to use the product (e.g. prizes, payment) – Use problem definition as described by customers to identify key word list – plug into Google search traffic estimator - high traffic means there is problem awareness• Drive traffic to site using Google search and see how deep into a registration process customers are willing to go through

Market Type - Existing• Incumbents
exist, customers can name the mkt• Customers want/need better performance• Usually technology driven• Positioning driven by product and how much value customers place on its features• Risks: – Incumbents will defend their turf – Network effects of incumbent – Continuing innovation

Market Type – Resementing Existing•
Low cost provider (Southwest)• Unique niche via positioning (Whole Foods)• What factors can: – you eliminate that your industry has long competed on? – Be reduced well below the industry‟s standard? – should be raised well above the industry‟s standard? – be created that the industry has never offered? (blue ocean)

Market Type – New• Customers
don‟t exist today• How will they find out about you?• How will they become aware of their need?• How do you know the market size is compelling?• Which factors should be created that the industry has never offered? (blue ocean)

For Tomorrow’s Presentation• What were
your value proposition hypotheses?• What did potential customers think about your value proposition hypotheses? – Get out of the building and begin to talk to customers for Oct 12th – Talk to 10-15 customers more by Oct 18th – Follow-up with Survey Monkey (or similar service) to get more data• Submit interview notes, present results in class.• Update your blog/wiki/journal with progress customers and value prop

Hypothesis 1:Large number of privacy-concerned
LBS users Most had low concern about location privacy• User Interviews - Reasons • User Interviews – Reasons for lack of concern for concern – Trust the provider – Uncertainty how data – Don‟t believe that data can used/misused be used against them – General unease – Never crossed their mind • Survey: 34% concerned – Don‟t use LBS – 37% chose not to use a LBS – Don‟t have smartphone because of privacy concerns – Data already available to carriers &government• Survey: 66% not concerned

Hypothesis 2: Willing to pay
for protecting locations Even some unconcerned customers are willing to pay!• User Interviews – Unwilling to • User Interviews – Willing to pay pay: – Not interested in even a free – $15/month for total privacy service protection, only a “few – Not concerned enough to pay bucks/month” for location – Not enough value add privacy – $1/week• Survey: 28% would not use it – $5 one time payment even if it is free, 54% would not pay • Survey: 46% willing to pay – 9%: $1 – 19%: $10 – 9%: $1/month – 9%: $5/month

Hypothesis 3:Able to reach them
with low cost• Yes – at least at first• Google Ad Words: – Should be cheap at first - We are the only advertiser for “location privacy” (and related) – Location privacy is a popular search term

Hypothesis 4:Able to raise awareness
through education • Yes • User Interviews – education may prove effective to some, as many did not think about or understand that LBS providers would get their location data, and indicated more concern

Hypothesis 5:Able to ease concerns
through endorsement• Yes• User interviews – endorsement from “famous people” and “serious organizations” would help ease concerns on the effectiveness of privacy protection.

CUSTOMER FEEDBACK1) Prof. Robert Davis,
Founder of CREE – a leading LED company - Heat transfer is a major issue. Not sure whether the internal phonon reflectance may in fact be the leading thermal limit.2) Prof. James Harris, EE Department, Stanford University - Heat transfer issue – The phonon reflection increases significantly with the doping of new materials. This reduces thermal conductivity of the LED. Eventually it becomes the limiting factor. Need to include reduction in the thermal conductivity in the heat transfer modeling. - Bought six PAR38 lights for his family room last week. Wants them to last 20-30 years as changing them with a ladder was a major hassle. - Light intensity was lower than incandescent bulbs it replaced. Not happy about that.

CUSTOMER FEEDBACK3) Mr. Mo, Co-owner
of Greenway Lighting, Santa Rosa, California - T8 lighting (tube light replacement) is their main product. PAR38 replacement is needed, but not available today. They recommend PAR30, a much lower intensity product. The available PAR38 do not meet the lighting intensity and light quality demands for replacing the current incandescent lights. - Replacing light bulbs is a major hassle. Costs $400 to rent a cherry picker to replace bulbs – makes very expensive. Need to have longer life. - Offered a business proposition to do thermal design of his LED lights on a consultation basis (Not an attractive business model for us due to very low returns and limited scalability).

CUSTOMER FEEDBACK4) Prof. George Tayo,
ME Center for Design, Stanford University - LEDs are evolving very rapidly. Thermal issues are similar to PCs – cooling will remain major issues as performance and quality envelope will continue to expand.5) Mr. Bruno (maintenance supervisor) – Sheraton Hotel, Palo Alto - Use 100‟s of PAR38 in this hotel. Replace every 6 months or so. Would be happy with longer life product - Current weight of LEDs might prevent them from being used in establishments with high ceiling. (Heavy aluminum heat sink adds significantly to weight).

CUSTOMER FEEDBACK6. Pottery Barn Staff
– Pottery Barn, Palo Alto  Title 24 has changed the procurement patterns of corporate headquarters regarding light fixtures – no dimming or two-way switches (Need to become familiar with local laws)  Use incandescent lights for all general illumination (counted 34 in front foyer alone) without dimming or daylight control. Extensive use of CFLs in displays (not directional so less suitable for task lighting).7. Paul (salesperson) – Stanford Electricals - • Advocate of LEDs; largely „self-educated‟ • Indicated that rising prices (~30% in last 6 mths) of fluorescents (due to phosphor costs) and falling LED prices will boost LED sales • Indicated unwillingness of smaller retailers to experiment with new suppliers products‟ • Highlighted form factor of LEDs and emphasized that products need to be used without changing current infrastructure. • Seeing significantly increased adoption of LEDs by customers (particularly over last 5 mths)

IMMEDIATE Next steps• Conduct further
interviews to asap validate value proposition and channel hypotheses – OEMS and Institutions – Specifiers and Contractors• Begin work on key activities including reduction of technology to practice (prototyping)

Out of the Building -
Face to face with attending Radiologist at Stanford University - Face to face with radiopharmacist at UCSF - Conference call with Nuclear Radiologist at Memorial Sloan Kettering - Conference call with president of medium size drug company with PET product at the FDA - Telephone conference with cGMP facilityI-Corps 10/12/11 71

Out of the Building -
Immediate need for our product - Currently used SPECT product for neuroblastomais limited by absence of correlative CT data - Our lead PET agent would provide more information on existing imaging equipment base - Two customers offered to participate in clinical trials - Potential for further development of other tracers identified in interviews - Actual need for the general procedure - Allow access to previously unknown tracersI-Corps 10/12/11 72

Impact on the ValueProposition Hypothesis
-Initially seeking to market method technology -too diffuse, but many opportunities (i.e. product-driven opportunities more than general technology-driven) -Need to identify specific imaging product opportunities -Validated hypothesis for immediate need of tracers -Raised question on identity of lead compound pipeline for Parkinson‟s disease -Recruited two potential partners for clinical trials 73